DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 April 2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 12a, 12b, 22a, 22b, 38a, 38b, 40a, and 40b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 and 10-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 2, “the UV light such that the UV light” on line 4 should probably be --the one or more UV lights such that the one or more UV lights-- (antecedent basis);
(b) in claim 10, “the UV light” on line 3 should probably be --the one or more UV lights-- (antecedent basis);
(c) in claim 11, “the at least portion” on lines 4-5 should probably be --a portion-- (antecedent basis);
(d) in claim 11, “mounting assembly” on lines 6-7 should probably be --the mounting assembly-- (antecedent basis);
(e) in claim 11, “the UV lights” on lines 8-9 should probably be --the one or more UV lights-- (antecedent basis);
(f) in claim 12, “further comprising an array of UV lights” on line 1 should probably be --wherein the one or more UV lights is an array-- (antecedent basis);
(g) in claim 13, “mounting assembly” on line 2 should probably be --the mounting assembly-- (antecedent basis);
(h) in claim 13, “further comprising one or more UV lights” on line 1 should probably be --wherein the one or more UV lights-- (antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 9-12 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garofolo et al. (US 2016/0334644).
In regard to claim 2, Garofolo et al. disclose a pair of UV glasses comprising:
(a) a pair of eyeglasses comprising one or more lenses coupled with one or more temples (e.g., see pair of loupes “75” in Fig. 4 and “… Typically, a pair of loupes are provided that may be mounted to an eyeglass frame or headband … loupe portion (75), in certain embodiments, may be attached (movably or fixed) to, or pass through, the front shield (47), or it may be separately positioned attached (including movably attached) to the headband portion (102) or the visor portion (101). …” in paragraphs 4 and 122);
(b) one or more UV lights coupled to the one or more temples (e.g., “… a different or an additional light source can be incorporated in the same or different location on the visor portion such as an ultraviolet light … light (49) …” in paragraphs 106 and 123), wherein a switch is in operable communication with the UV light such that the UV light can be turned on and off (e.g., “… switch (43) in one exemplary embodiment, operated to turn on a light such as … ultraviolet light …” in paragraph 120); and
(c) one or more power supplies coupled to the UV lights (e.g., “… battery pack (53) is provided removably attached to the headband portion (102). An exemplary battery in the battery pack (53) is often rechargeable and provided with sufficient power to power a light …” in paragraph 126).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more lenses have a magnification in the range of 1.0x to 10.0x magnification (e.g., “… variety of magnification levels are contemplated for the presently described optical devices. For example, the device often imparts between about 1.0× to about 8.0× magnification. Often the magnification level is 0.5×, 1.0×, 2.0×, 3.0×, 4.0×, 5.0×, 6.0×, 7.0×, 8.0×, 9.0×, or 10.0× …” in paragraph 107).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 2, Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more lenses have a focal point from six inches to four feet (e.g., “… When donning optical loupes there is a tendency to bend at the neck, back, and/or shoulders to move closer to the work area. Also often, assuming such a contorted posture is dictated by the focal length of the chosen magnifying mechanism. The user must bend and move within the focal length of the chosen loupe, e.g., typically 15-18 inches …” in paragraph 101).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 2, Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more lenses filter UV light (e.g., “… light source whose emissions may injure the eyes of the user, it is often important to include a shield or smart glass technology that protects the user's eyes from such emissions. A removable or movable shield may be provided on or with the device, or smart glass that provides a blockage or reduction of damaging light from passing through to the user …” in paragraph 106).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 2, Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more power supplies are rechargeable (e.g., “… battery pack (53) is provided removably attached to the headband portion (102). An exemplary battery in the battery pack (53) is often rechargeable and provided with sufficient power to power a light …” in paragraph 126).
In regard to claim 10, Garofolo et al. disclose a method of using the UV glasses (the cited prior art is applied as in claim 2 above), comprising:
(a) placing the UV glasses on a wearer’s face (e.g., “… As used herein, "user wearable" refers to a device to be worn by a user. Most typically, user wearable refers to a device or system to be worn, at least in part, on the head of a subject …” in paragraph 97);
(b) turning on the UV light to produce a UV light beam (e.g., “… switch (43) in one exemplary embodiment, operated to turn on a light such as … ultraviolet light …” in paragraph 120);
(c) moving the wearer’s head such that the UV light beam is directed at an area (e.g., “… moving a person's head up and down or simply maintaining head weight in a static position while bent at the neck and/or pelvis such as those required in common dental and surgical procedures …” in paragraph 100); and
(d) detecting a fluorescent substance if the fluorescent substance is present (e.g., “… front shield permits the user to view a photoactivated or chemically activated substance such as a chemiluminescent or fluorescent dye …” in paragraph 122).
In regard to claim 11, Garofolo et al. disclose a UV face shield, comprising:
(a) a translucent material (e.g., “… front shield (47) is provided that is transparent, tinted or mirrored …” in paragraph 122) forming a shield sized to protect a face of a wearer (e.g., “… front shield (47) provides additional protection of the users face …” in paragraph 122);
(b) a mounting assembly coupled to the translucent material, the mounting assembly configured to support the translucent material on the wearer over the at least portion of the face (e.g., “… front shield (47) may be provided such that it does not contact the face of the user (depicted), but may also be provided or oriented such that it rests on the face of the user, for example on the nose of the user similar to a pair of traditional spectacles …” in paragraph 122);
(c) one or more UV lights coupled to at least one of the translucent material and mounting assembly (e.g., “… a different or an additional light source can be incorporated in the same or different location on the visor portion such as an ultraviolet light … light (49) …” in paragraphs 106 and 123); and
(d) a switch in operable communication with the one or more UV lights such that the UV lights can be turned on and off (e.g., “… switch (43) in one exemplary embodiment, operated to turn on a light such as … ultraviolet light …” in paragraph 120).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 11, Garofolo et al. also disclose an array of UV lights coupled to the at least one of the translucent material and mounting assembly (e.g., “… a different or an additional light source can be incorporated in the same or different location on the visor portion such as an ultraviolet light … light (49) …” in paragraphs 106 and 123).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofolo et al. (US 2016/0334644) in view of Artsyukhovich et al. (US 2008/0218863).
In regard to claim 1, Garofolo et al. disclose a pair of UV glasses comprising:
(a) a pair of eyeglasses comprising magnifying lenses and a temple (e.g., see pair of loupes “75” in Fig. 4 and “… Typically, a pair of loupes are provided that may be mounted to an eyeglass frame or headband … loupe portion (75), in certain embodiments, may be attached (movably or fixed) to, or pass through, the front shield (47), or it may be separately positioned attached (including movably attached) to the headband portion (102) or the visor portion (101). …” in paragraphs 4 and 122), wherein the lenses have a focal point from six (6) inches to four (4) feet of the lenses (e.g., “… When donning optical loupes there is a tendency to bend at the neck, back, and/or shoulders to move closer to the work area. Also often, assuming such a contorted posture is dictated by the focal length of the chosen magnifying mechanism. The user must bend and move within the focal length of the chosen loupe, e.g., typically 15-18 inches …” in paragraph 101), wherein the lenses are in the range of 1.0x to 10.0x magnification (e.g., “… variety of magnification levels are contemplated for the presently described optical devices. For example, the device often imparts between about 1.0× to about 8.0× magnification. Often the magnification level is 0.5×, 1.0×, 2.0×, 3.0×, 4.0×, 5.0×, 6.0×, 7.0×, 8.0×, 9.0×, or 10.0× …” in paragraph 107), wherein the lenses are tinted (e.g., “… front shield (47) is provided that is transparent, tinted or mirrored. In certain embodiments, the front shield permits the user to view a photoactivated or chemically activated substance such as a chemiluminescent or fluorescent dye. The front shield (47) provides additional protection of the users face and eyes from liquids or debris …” in paragraph 122), wherein the lenses filter UV light (e.g., “… light source whose emissions may injure the eyes of the user, it is often important to include a shield or smart glass technology that protects the user's eyes from such emissions. A removable or movable shield may be provided on or with the device, or smart glass that provides a blockage or reduction of damaging light from passing through to the user …” in paragraph 106),
(b) a UV light coupled to the temple (e.g., “… a different or an additional light source can be incorporated in the same or different location on the visor portion such as an ultraviolet light … light (49) …” in paragraphs 106 and 123), wherein a switch is in operable communication with the UV light such that the UV light can be turned on and off (e.g., “… switch (43) in one exemplary embodiment, operated to turn on a light such as … ultraviolet light …” in paragraph 120); and
(c) a power supply coupled to the UV light (e.g., “… battery pack (53) is provided removably attached to the headband portion (102). An exemplary battery in the battery pack (53) is often rechargeable and provided with sufficient power to power a light …” in paragraph 126).
The glasses of Garofolo et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… tinted …” such as yellow. However, “… tinted …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… ophthalmic illuminator to achieve near-UV blocking (or other wavelength filtering) of the light originating from an illuminating light source, while maintaining the color characteristics of the filtered illuminating light at near color-neutral, thus overcoming the color and contrast distorting characteristics of prior art retinal safety filters. Further, the color compensating properties taught herein can also be implanted in intraocular lenses to provide near-UV (or other wavelength) filtering and protection to those receiving IOL implants. Currently, such devices, for example, ACRYSOF.TM. Natural IOLs, are tinted yellow to filter ultra-violet, violet and blue light …” in paragraph 41 of Artsyukhovich et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional tinted color (e.g., comprising details such as “tinted yellow”, in order “to filter ultra-violet, violet and blue light”) for the unspecified tinted color of Garofolo et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tinted color (e.g., comprising details such as the lenses are tinted yellow to filter UV light) as the unspecified “… tinted …” color of Garofolo et al.
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 2, the glasses of Garofolo et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… tinted …” such as yellow, red, or orange. However, “… tinted …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… ophthalmic illuminator to achieve near-UV blocking (or other wavelength filtering) of the light originating from an illuminating light source, while maintaining the color characteristics of the filtered illuminating light at near color-neutral, thus overcoming the color and contrast distorting characteristics of prior art retinal safety filters. Further, the color compensating properties taught herein can also be implanted in intraocular lenses to provide near-UV (or other wavelength) filtering and protection to those receiving IOL implants. Currently, such devices, for example, ACRYSOF.TM. Natural IOLs, are tinted yellow to filter ultra-violet, violet and blue light …” in paragraph 41 of Artsyukhovich et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional tinted color (e.g., comprising details such as “tinted yellow”, in order “to filter ultra-violet, violet and blue light”) for the unspecified tinted color of Garofolo et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tinted color (e.g., comprising details such as the one or more lenses are tinted yellow) as the unspecified “… tinted …” color of Garofolo et al.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garofolo et al. (US 2016/0334644) in view of Shimada et al. (US 2001/0021108).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 2, while Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more lights are coupled to the one or more temples (e.g., “… visor portion (101) includes a light (49) for illuminating a work area. One or more lights maybe provided each having variable or different strengths, positions, or angulations …” in paragraph 123), the glasses of Garofolo et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… positions, or angulations …” such as embedded in the one or more temples. However, “… positions, or angulations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… two sets of light sources are provided corresponding to the left and right eyes. In this case, the gazing direction detectors detect the gazing directions of the left and right eyes independently, and the controller control the direction changing mechanism to change respective light sources' lighting directions corresponding to the detected left and right gazing directions. Since normally the left and right eyes' gazing lines cross at the gazing object, a greater illuminance and shadow-free illumination is obtained at the gazing object … two light sources may be placed at the left and right ends of the front face of goggles. This style neatly utilizes the free space of the far ends of the goggles …” in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Shimada et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional positions or angulations (e.g., comprising details such as “two light sources may be placed at the left and right ends of the front face of goggles”, in order to “neatly utilizes the free space of the far ends of the goggles”) for the unspecified positions or angulations of Garofolo et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional positions or angulations (e.g., comprising details such as the one or more lights are embedded in the one or more temples) as the unspecified “… positions, or angulations …” of Garofolo et al.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 2, while Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more lights are coupled to the one or more temples (e.g., “… visor portion (101) includes a light (49) for illuminating a work area. One or more lights maybe provided each having variable or different strengths, positions, or angulations …” in paragraph 123), the glasses of Garofolo et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… positions, or angulations …” such as movably coupled. However, “… positions, or angulations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… two sets of light sources are provided corresponding to the left and right eyes. In this case, the gazing direction detectors detect the gazing directions of the left and right eyes independently, and the controller control the direction changing mechanism to change respective light sources' lighting directions corresponding to the detected left and right gazing directions. Since normally the left and right eyes' gazing lines cross at the gazing object, a greater illuminance and shadow-free illumination is obtained at the gazing object … two light sources may be placed at the left and right ends of the front face of goggles. This style neatly utilizes the free space of the far ends of the goggles …” in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Shimada et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional positions or angulations (e.g., comprising details such as “direction changing mechanism to change respective light sources' lighting directions”, in order to achieve “shadow-free illumination”) for the unspecified positions or angulations of Garofolo et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional positions or angulations (e.g., comprising details such as the one or more lights are movably coupled to the one or more temples) as the unspecified “… positions, or angulations …” of Garofolo et al.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 11, while Garofolo et al. also disclose that the one or more UV lights are coupled to the mounting assembly to shine and move with movement of the face (e.g., “… visor portion (101) includes a light (49) for illuminating a work area. One or more lights maybe provided each having variable or different strengths, positions, or angulations …” in paragraph 123), the glasses of Garofolo et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… positions, or angulations …” such as from both sides of the face. However, “… positions, or angulations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… two sets of light sources are provided corresponding to the left and right eyes. In this case, the gazing direction detectors detect the gazing directions of the left and right eyes independently, and the controller control the direction changing mechanism to change respective light sources' lighting directions corresponding to the detected left and right gazing directions. Since normally the left and right eyes' gazing lines cross at the gazing object, a greater illuminance and shadow-free illumination is obtained at the gazing object … two light sources may be placed at the left and right ends of the front face of goggles. This style neatly utilizes the free space of the far ends of the goggles …” in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Shimada et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional positions or angulations (e.g., comprising details such as “two light sources may be placed at the left and right ends of the front face of goggles”, in order to achieve “shadow-free illumination”) for the unspecified positions or angulations of Garofolo et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional positions or angulations (e.g., comprising details such as one or more UV lights coupled to the mounting assembly to shine from both sides of the face and move with movement of the face) as the unspecified “… positions, or angulations …” of Garofolo et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0106504 teaches an eyeglass.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights